Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Paul Whelan On His Russian Imprisonment; Trump Expresses Wish To Control Greenland, Panama Canal; CEO Murder Suspect Pleads Not Guilty To State Terror & Murder Charges. Aired 7:30-8a ET

Aired December 24, 2024 - 07:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: In his final weeks in the White House.

[07:30:03]

CNN's MJ Lee has much more of the details on this.

MJ, this has been kind of a centerpiece of the Biden administration, his focus on trying to put forth student loan forgiveness. A lot of it's been challenged in court.

So what are Democrats looking for now?

MJ LEE, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. You know, Kate, I think generally speaking, there is a sense across the board in Washington, D.C. right now of bracing for and preparing for the incoming Trump administration and how that is manifesting here at the White House is the president, along with White House and administration officials, trying to figure out what, if anything, they can realistically try to do with really just the handful of weeks left before President Biden leaves office to one, continue to advance some of his policy goals, and then also put protections and guardrails in place for the work that's already been done.

And as you said, Kate, you know, student loan forgiveness has been a huge priority for this president and the administration. And notably, he had put forward this signature landmark proposal that would have canceled some $400 billion in student loans. But that ended up getting caught up in the Supreme Court with the highest court basically rejecting that. And since then, we have seen this basically piecemeal effort by the administration to offer relief in places where they can.

Now, Democratic lawmakers, as you noted, they are basically putting pressure on this administration and this president to do whatever they can to get a little more work done, provide a little more relief. Again, with the little time that is left. And that includes sort of targeting specific groups of borrowers, including students who have been defrauded by schools. Many of them have had their debts still not canceled out. There's also students that are eligible for relief under borrower defense. And then finally, borrowers who are still in limbo right now because of a program called stave, which is currently in litigation.

As you mentioned, there are many pieces of this that are basically stuck in limbo because of the various legal actions that have been taken. It's not really clear, Kate, what exactly Donald Trump intends to do just on the broad issue of student loans, though he certainly has not spoken about this issue in the same way. And there's no expectation that he's going to go out of his way in any way, really, to defend and protect the initiatives that were started under the Biden administration. So you can easily imagine this being a really tough time in general for borrowers, many of whom at some point over the last few years thought that they were going to have a lot of their debt canceled out or forgiven.

And now they are stuck in limbo and they have no idea if, if at all, that debt that they thought was going to go away is going to go away anytime soon -- Kate.

BOLDUAN: A lot of this stuck in limbo of what's already happened in the past, and a lot of people feeling like they're in limbo, of knowing of the uncertainty of what's going to happen in the future. That -- that's for sure.

MJ, good to see you. Thank you so much -- Sara.

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: All right. This morning, we're learning new details about Paul Whelan's detention in Russia. Whelan spent more than five years in captivity.

During that time, he personally reached out by phone and with letters to journalists in the U.S., including CNN's Jennifer Hansler. Now, Whelan says he wanted to make sure his story wasn't forgotten. And in a new interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper, Whelan shares how he got through those years and the treatment that he received, sometimes 23 hours alone in a cell.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PAUL WHELAN, AMERICAN WRONGFULLY DETAINED IN RUSSIA FOR MORE THAN 5 YEARS: Being back, it's -- it's surreal. I'm in a world that used to be familiar and it isn't. I'm getting used to just simple things.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: You were held in a prison in Moscow initially, which is a notorious. It's a high, like, maximum security prison, I think, it's a very notorious prison.

WHELAN: Yes. Lefortovo, it's called the Shooting Gallery because that's where the Russians used to and probably still do shoot their own people. It's a -- it's a horrendously old rundown facility. And, you know, you're in a small cell by yourself basically 23 hours a day.

COOPER: How long were you in that facility?

WHELAN: For a year and a half.

COOPER: I cannot imagine. Suddenly, from being in your hotel room visiting your friend for a wedding, to being in this notorious prison, how do you mentally not just panic and freak out?

WHELAN: I probably did panic and freaked out. Very quickly, I -- I realized that what was happening was real. You

know, there was some solace in the fact that I knew my -- my ambassadors would be coming to find out what was happening. I wasn't sure how long it would take to resolve.

[07:35:00]

I knew I hadn't done anything. I hadn't violated the Espionage Law. I'm not a spy. I never have been. They'd either made a mistake or they were making it up.

COOPER: Once you, after the trial, you were sentenced like 16 years, I think?

WHELAN: Right. Yes.

COOPER: You were sent to a labor camp in Mordovia, and you're still, for the next three, four years, you are woken up every two hours at night.

WHELAN: Yes, I was an escape risk, apparently. Mordovia, there's nothing -- there's nothing out there, it's woods, it's forests, you know.

COOPER: And so what they would come in, wake you up, and what?

WHELAN: They'd shine a light in my eyes and then take a picture with a camera to prove that they had -- they had checked me.

COOPER: Every night, every two hours?

WHELAN: Every two hours.

COOPER: For years.

WHELAN: For four years.

COOPER: Do you -- can you sleep normally now?

WHELAN: Now I'm getting back to a normal sleep pattern. It's difficult.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SIDNER: It's an incredible story there that Paul Whelan has after so many years in those really dangerous prisons.

All right, this morning, the president-elect and the president now of Panama, residents as well, rebuking President-elect Donald Trumps threat to retake control of the Panama Canal. Trump has been on a tear in the last week, not only threatening to reassert U.S. control of the canal, but again voicing his desire to obtain Greenland and suggesting all of Canada become the 51st U.S. state.

What's with all this talk of territorial expansion?

CNN senior reporter Steve Contorno joining us now from West Palm Beach.

Panamanians are pissed.

STEVE CONTORNO, CNN REPORTER: Sara, it starts right at the top with the Panama president. Jose Raul Mulino, who told CNN En Espanol that he had no plans to work with Donald Trump on turning over the canal and that Trump's attacks over the past few days represent a gross misunderstanding of the operations there. Trump has accused Panama of charging exorbitant fees to the U.S. navy and American ships that try to use the canal to get from the Pacific to the Atlantic, or vice versa.

Panama president, though, saying that Trumps threats to take over the canal will not be taken lightly. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOSE RAUL MULINO, PANAMANIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): This was -- that is a manifestation of gross ignorance of history. So all those speculations and all that range of eventualities that are not going to happen, well, I leave them there as totally irrelevant issues and quite bordering on historical incoherence with what the Panama Canal has been, is and will be.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CONTORNO: Now, I should point out, Sara, that this port has been under control of Panama for the past 25 years. In fact, they are about to celebrate the 25th anniversary of Panama control on December 31st. It's part of a the release of it to Panama after nearly a century of U.S. control, was part of a series of treaties signed under President Jimmy carter that ultimately guaranteed that U.S. ships would be allowed to use the port in perpetuity in exchange for allowing Panama to operate the ports. But and take in the profits.

But Trump, now targeting that decades long balance and potentially throwing a wrench in what has been a steady alliance for, for a quarter century.

SIDNER: All right. We will see what happens with all the things that he talked about trying to bring back to the United States. Really appreciate it. Steve Contorno there, live for us.

Kate?

BOLDUAN: Let's talk about that right now. Joining us right now, our CNN political commentators, Maria Cardona and Scott Jennings.

Maria also gets extra credit points for jumping on so quickly. We see you and we appreciate you, Maria.

Scott, I will start with you.

He's not only talking about Panama, he's also talking once again about buying Greenland. Here's what was -- here's this part of the statement on social media for purposes of national security and freedom throughout the world. The United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity.

Do you take him seriously? Should Panama and Greenland take him seriously?

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: A couple of things. Number one, why don't I get bonus points for being prompt and on time for these things? Number two, yes, we need Greenland. Greenland is an amazing thing to have. Its like, do you ever play Monopoly?

You know, like the first row of properties. Like they're cheap, maybe I don't need. You need those. Those are vital properties.

I am for Greenland. I wanted him to do it before. I want him to do it now. And I am personally and on television, applying to be the military governor of Greenland if, in fact, we do take control of it.

This is an amazing idea and I know everybody is laughing about it, but if he accomplishes this in four years, it will be a great legacy piece for Donald Trump.

BOLDUAN: So I will say, Maria, and you do get I love people who are prompt, so I will give you half a credit. Okay. Half a credit, Scott.

But, Maria, back to the lesser important things, which would be the news.

[07:40:05]

Very serious people are saying to take this very seriously. People in Trump's orbit say that it may sound. It may sound out there, but it is actually squarely in line with his America first policies.

Victoria Coates, who was a top national security official in Trumps first term, told "Reuters" this about all that. The idea is that what's good for America is good for the rest of the world. So he takes a clear eyed look at what are America's interests in any given situation, and says that about all of this, Panamas president, clearly not too happy, saying our country's sovereignty and independence are not negotiable.

But I've been hearing when it comes to Panama, part of this has to do with concern and standing up to the growing influence of China.

What do you think of this if this is a negotiating position from Donald Trump, Maria?

MARIA CARDONA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I certainly agree that we should take him seriously, that he wants to do this. It doesn't make it a good idea or a sane idea. I mean, pass go collect $200. Who knows?

The fact of the matter is, is that we can't take the Panama Canal just by saying we want to take the Panama Canal. It doesn't belong to us.

And so maybe Trump should crack a book, read the law, look at history, try to understand what actually happened not just 25 years ago, but in 1977 and 100 years ago, when the construction of the Panama canal started. It doesn't belong to us. And so just by saying it doesn't make it so -- doesn't make it a good idea.

But look, if he is actually concerned about the Chinese influence in Panama on the Panama Canal in Latin America, which is what I understand is the basis of this, and that I do think should be a concern. Then he should be smart about it. He should be strategic. He should go to Panama and say, we want to work with you. We want to invest with you.

It's exactly what the Chinese are doing. We want to invest in the Panama Canal, make it work better, make it work for you. That way, if it works for you, it works for us. It's called partnership.

I understand that he doesn't really believe in that. He wants to be the strong man. Go in there, own it all.

Greenland, I really don't get that. But, you know, Scott is very interested in it. So, Scott, if you move to Greenland, I would love to come and visit you. It doesn't mean it's good for America or that it's a smart thing to do.

And frankly, it's not what he talked about in the campaign. Its not why people voted for him. So I think that there is a risk here for him to be focusing so much energy in his transition in his first term, talking about acquiring Greenland when he promised Americans he would bring down the price of groceries.

BOLDUAN: Well, on the issue of the Panama Canal, Scott, what do you think of this? Look, let's think about it as a negotiating position, right? If it's the bull in a china shop, break it and blow it all up and then remake it in your in your image and your liking, or. What Maria is saying, work, partnership and diplomacy in the more traditional sense. Why option A over option B?

JENNINGS: Well, whether it's a negotiating position or not, here's what's non-negotiable: Chinese influence in this hemisphere. They are on the march. They are all over the world. They are in this hemisphere.

They're in Latin America. They're in Africa. The Chinese are trying to rival and surpass the United States as the most influential culture in the world, as the most influential superpower in society in the world.

We cannot allow this. And so Donald Trump is extremely worried about this, and I think he needs to put the rest of our neighbors on notice that we're not going to permit the Chinese to encroach upon our part of the world.

And yes, we do need partnership. Yes, we do need diplomacy. Yes, we do need to work together. But you have to lay down some markers and you have to lay down some boundaries.

And I think Joe Biden has frankly been asleep at the wheel on the encroachment of Chinese influence in the world. Donald Trump is back. He is well aware of the threat that they pose. And so I'm for a little bit of a wild card presidency here, especially, especially when it comes to counteracting Chinese influence. We cannot allow it. And so after four years, if he pushes back on that and pushes them away from us and pushes them away from our closest allies and our closest neighbors, that will be a good thing.

BOLDUAN: I will say, though, you see the you see the tweets and you see the headlines, and many people will think, this is wild. This is I do actually, I hear you and Scott in one sense, which is this is a space to watch. I do not think this is potentially, maybe not just a one off flippant commentary just to, you know, a pontification, if you will.

I want to turn to this, though, Maria, the Democratic brand.

[07:45:01]

Joe -- you and I have talked about the postmortem and kind of the soul searching that has occurred since the election. Joe Manchin, he's weighing in with his Democratic Party review on his way out the door, a Democrat turned independent. I know you've seen this sound bite. I want to play it to remind everyone what Joe Manchin says about the Democratic brand. And then I want to ask you, then I'll ask you about it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOE MANCHIN (I-WV): The D brand has been so maligned from the standpoint of it's just -- it's toxic.

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: How would you describe what the Democratic brand is right now? In a couple of words, what is the Democratic brand?

MANCHIN: You know, its basically infringement on me making decisions.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: So that's Joe Manchin's take. Let me add something else into this. Another element, Liz Smith, a Democratic communications strategist. She spoke to "The New York Times'" Frank Bruni, about the Democratic brand. Her take I read this just -- just yesterday.

She her take was the Democratic brand is in the toilet. Many of the Democrats who succeeded this cycle are best over-performers in house races, for instance, are people who ran against the Democratic Party brand. Trump tore down the blue wall in the industrial Midwest, but he also expanded his vote the most in our bluest and most urban areas.

Do you -- do you agree with this? Do you agree with elements of it? Do you reject it all? What do you think, Maria?

CARDONA: I don't agree with the majority of that. And in terms of what Joe Manchin said, I'm sorry. He's saying that the Democratic Party is the one that is taking away our ability to make decisions. Are you kidding me right now? You're going to tell women that, that it's the Democrats that want to take away our right to make decisions? I don't think so.

And so I'm sorry, Joe Manchin is not the king of credibility when it comes to the Democratic Party.

In terms of what Liz Smith said. Look, certainly the Democrats had huge challenges in communicating our message. But let's remember, this was not a rout. This was not a huge, sweeping win by Donald Trump, 7,000 votes in the House, the difference of 7000 votes in the house. And Democrats would be in control, 200,000 votes, more or less and Kamala Harris would have won the blue walls and would have won the presidency.

This was not a sweeping mandate. Donald Trump didn't even break 50 percent of the popular vote. I'm not saying that Democrats don't have challenges. Absolutely, we have challenges in how we communicated and where we communicated and to whom we communicated.

But I do not agree that the Democratic Party brand is in as much trouble as both of these folks are talking about. We certainly have work to do, but there's no question that the Democrats still stand for making sure that everyone has the ability to acquire the American dream, that everyone is on an equitable and level playing field, to be able to live up to their God-given potential and to be able to do what they can to succeed in this country.

And it's not the party that focuses on oligarchs and billionaires and millionaires, which is what Donald Trump is doing right now in his transition and apparently wants to do in the in the first Trump administration. I think Democrats have a huge challenge ahead, but we also have a huge opportunity to continue making the distinction between what Trump is proving, what he is about.

And our last conversation actually underscores that he wants to go and be the strongman and take over everything and be all about, you know, Elon Musk and billionaires and millionaires. And he's forgetting the promises that he made to working class and middle class Americans about bringing down prices, bringing down housing prices. That's the last thing that he's talking about right now. And I think that's going to backfire.

BOLDUAN: We shall see. And, Scott, since I know you love giving Democrats advice on how to fix their brand, you get to do that next time. It's good to see you both. Thank you so much.

JENNINGS: No, wait a minute. You're not -- you're not going to let me -- you're not going to. It takes Maria -- it takes Maria five minutes to define what the Democratic brand is. And you don't let me respond to it after I show up on time on Christmas Eve. This is an insult that will not be forgotten, I promise you.

BOLDUAN: I just bought you 30s. Just because I'm feeling --

JENNINGS: Maria, she filibustered me. She filibustered me out of the conversation here. Okay, well, I'll tell you, it took Maria five minutes. Here's 10 seconds. Democrats are the party of uncommon nonsense. Republicans are the

party of common sense. It's why our tent right now is full of such a wide ideological spectrum. People are flocking to the Republicans because we stand for common sense. And Democrats have taken on all this uncommon fringe nonsense.

And if they are in the toilet, my advice, flush away the fringe and the people who have drug you down there because this is what -- this is why Republicans won the election.

[07:50:03]

BOLDUAN: This is what I know, uncommon nonsense. What I'm seeing right here is a perfect example of common straight up nonsense, you two, I love you, but goodness gracious.

CARDONA: Greenland --

JENNINGS: Merry Christmas.

CARDONA: Greenland and Panama, common sense.

BOLDUAN: Guys, literally. I'm going to cut your mike even though I love you. But just zip it. I love you so much.

Sara, take it quickly. They have hijacked.

SIDNER: Kate, I feel like you're talking to two other people in your life, two small people.

BOLDUAN: Oh, you mean my -- my delicious little kiddos.

SIDNER: Yes.

BOLDUAN: I love Scott and Maria just as much as I love them too.

SIDNER: I think the word "zip it" will be part of the lexicon of this show from now forward.

All right. Just ahead, the man accused of killing the UnitedHealthcare CEO back in court. Why? His attorney says she's concerned about him getting a fair trial.

And all Netflix wants for Christmas is a glitch free broadcast, rare, as the platform prepares to stream two star-studded NFL games for the first time ever.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:55:46]

SIDNER: This morning, there are new questions about what comes next for suspected CEO killer Luigi Mangione now that he has pleaded not guilty to state murder and terrorism charges in New York. During Mangione's first appearance in state court, his attorney raised concerns not only over whether a fair trial is possible, but also over the parallel federal case that is playing out as well.

Former Manhattan prosecutor Jeremy Saland joining us now.

Welcome, Jeremy. Thank you so much for coming on this holiday week just before Christmas.

Let's talk about Mangione's attorney, Karen Agnifilo. She hit two points hard in court yesterday. One, she railed against the Fed's piling on with the parallel case alongside the state case. And she talked about the spectacle, the police and including the mayor of New York made of her client during transfer to New York, saying that the pretrial publicity is prejudicial, be hard for her to get a jury in her mind.

So what do you make of those two arguments that she is putting out there at the very beginning in this case?

JEREMY SALAND, FORMER MANHATTAN PROSECUTOR: Well, I'm going to start off by continuing something from your last segment, which is zip it, and it actually works here. And I don't say that in a -- I mean, it's a humorous situation for a very tragic, very real, you know, horror.

But what she's saying basically is, is Mayor Adams, you you're not standing up and doing this elsewhere. You're not doing this in domestic violence homicides. You're not doing this, at least not yet, about this tragedy we just saw on a subway in Manhattan where someone was burned alive in an alleged murder there too.

The federal government, when you have a clemency to 37 out of 40 people on death row by the current president, Joe Biden, and the southern district is potentially seeking the death penalty on this case. There's a lot of disarray here. It doesn't make sense.

And what she's ultimately saying is this is throwing this all out of whack. This is not legal. It's not lawful.

That being said, neither of those arguments are going to hold much water. The U.S. attorney can have a different theory. And they could have a mayor who can say a lot of things, but it's not going to really hold water. But her point is a very important one, which is what's going on here.

Let's stick to the four corners of this case. This is a murder two case. And somehow, because you have UnitedHealthcare CEO, it's exploded into more.

I will say one thing and I give Karen credit. I've known Karen for many, many years as a prosecutor. This is not to take away from that argument, but I'm wondering if those same arguments were made during her tenure for countless other cases where we hear sort of a publicity and press releases and a lot of action outside the courtroom.

SIDNER: Yeah, there was in this case, though, so much especially as social media exploded, although people were there, and we'll talk about it, to praise him in many ways.

Let me talk about what we saw in court, because this is the first time.

SALAND: It's disappointing.

SIDNER: Yeah, this first time we've seen him in court, because, of course, you can't have cameras in federal court. And it was hard to miss that I don't know if it was by accident or a coincidence or something else or a plan, but Agnifilo had matching outfits and you noticed that, you know, she was talking to him, sort of touching him on the shoulder.

What do you make of some of these gestures, and is it something that, you know, a good defense attorney will do to humanize their client, saying, look, this isn't just a dangerous killer that police are saying, you know, did this, but he's -- he's a -- he's a regular guy.

SALAND: Yeah. I don't think the matching outfits was planned. You know, Luigi or any other inmate is only limited to a certain degree in terms of what he has access to and can wear from the outside coming in. That being said, Karen is doing a terrific job. Karen Agnifilo is doing a terrific job doing what Mr. Dickey didn't do while the case was pending in Pennsylvania.

To your point, great words, Sara. He's -- she's humanizing him and making him realize that he's not the animal that some believe he is. And ultimately she's going to go down that road of that mental defect, of that insanity defense. But one of the things she has to do, at least for now, is sort of rein things in and control what is being said because if that message is wrong, you know, we forget this is Brian Thompson, this is a tragedy.

But let's not lionize him. She doesn't want to lionize him. She really wants to deal with Joel Seidmann, the prosecutor, and Judge Carro right now in the state.